Re: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds.

I consciously and intentionally choose to interpret this factual information with my eye toward reinforcing my preexisting view that the majority of stones released from Liver Flushes are in fact intrahepatic stones.

The manner in which I choose to reinforce my preexisting view is by asserting that this article directly proves how opposers of the Liver Flush will interpret information in this article with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views that the Liver Flush does not work, and that the Liver Flush supporters are stubbornly refusing factual information.

=)

By the way, Webmaster, I have a question regarding your "dyeing to know the truth" experiment. What was your preparation like for the flush? The exact diet and protocol? I ask because I believe that what you released were not actually the typical liver flush intrahepatic stones. They were deformed, and seemed to be actual soap stones. I believe the article you posted above is an example of how opposers of the liver flush choose to interpret your experiment results as proof that the liver flush stones are merely only saponified oil and bile, when the experiment only proves that soap stones can be successfully dyed. And so they apply a logical fallacy appearing as fact towards reinforcing their preexisting views.

Or perhaps I am just using your experiment results to reinforce my preexisting views despite the ..."facts"?

Tweet